The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[Rel]

I think the fact that they don't repeat "Rule 0" at the end of every paragraph in the PHB doesn't make it any less valid.

I'm not in the "GM Rules the Game with an IRON FIST" crowd by any means. I think the only good way to GM is to make sure the group is on the same page about what they expect from the game. But once that decision is reached then it is only fair to allow the GM to establish the parameters of the game world. If, for the integrity of the setting, the GM feels the need to limit the players options then I think that's fine, so long as it generally meets the guidelines for what sort of game the group as a whole wants to play.

As far as the matter of "well that's all fine and well if you have an established group but if you don't...", I think the "culture of 3E" is the least of your worries. I mean, if somebody wants to join your group but won't take no for an answer about thier options being restricted, regardless of the desires of the GM and other players, then that's an intractable jerk who you don't want at your gaming table anyway. Even if their preferences for player options happened to line up with yours in the first place, you'd probably still have a problem with them down the line because they're an intractable jerk.

I see this as a player problem, not a system problem.

 

[Belen]

me too.

then the GM says, "We're not doing it that way in this campaign."

and then the player says, "OK."

and then everyone goes back to playing.

(and yes, this was in a group of all-new players.)

i don't agree with your basic assumption. i don't see D&D promoting that view at all. i agree with Piratecat's assessment.

the only time we ever had a player who thought the way you describe, we got rid of him and got other new players who didn't act that way. so far, of the four or five groups i've playe D&D 3e with over the years, there's only been one or two players i've met who go to that extreme.

I am just in a contentious mood today.

I still think that options over restrictions is the implied nature of the game. Restricting things like classes, feats, PRCs is seen as inherently bad.

For example, ow many people have you see over the last few years have used the "GMs should not have the power to make arbitrary decisions." This gets used whenever a GM says that they are restricting anything, even if the reason is not arbitrary.

In fact, most of these people consider "flavor" to be arbitrary.

 

[diaglo]

I see this as a player problem, not a system problem.

in part i agree. the quality of players is seriously lacking.

 

[buzz]

Consider the possibility that you are the problem, not the game.

Of all possible responses to Belen's post, this is the most appropriate.

The behavior being described is something I've seen in all kinds of systems. This is a user problem, not a system problem.

 

[WayneLigon]

I still think that options over restrictions is the implied nature of the game. Restricting things like classes, feats, PRCs is seen as inherently bad.

Options over restrictions can't be anything but good; it works in gaming as well as in the rest of life. That 'culture' is what brought me back to D&D; basically, D&D finally 'grew up' as a system.

However, with great options comes great responsibility. It's the GM's duty and responsibility to sift through all those options and use them to create a fun and satisfying game. If you have players demanding that any and all options be used, they need a good talking-to. If they still insist, find new ones and let the old ones go play the game they want to.

 

[jasamcarl]

I am just in a contentious mood today.

I still think that options over restrictions is the implied nature of the game. Restricting things like classes, feats, PRCs is seen as inherently bad.

For example, ow many people have you see over the last few years have used the "GMs should not have the power to make arbitrary decisions." This gets used whenever a GM says that they are restricting anything, even if the reason is not arbitrary.

In fact, most of these people consider "flavor" to be arbitrary.

I'm in a contentious mood as well, so I will just go with..."Poor baby!!!"

 

[Psion]

I think the point of "options not restrictions" is that the GM can provide restrictions instead of the system.

AFAIAC, this is a good thing. I'd rather be in the role of saying Dwarves can't be wizards (for example) than having the book tell me that and then see all material that would accomodate such a decision assume this is the case.

 

[Sammael]

More options is almost never a bad thing.

3(.5)E gives an inexperienced DM an infinitely greater chance to focus on storytelling by spelling out all the rules and thus reducing the need to make ad hoc rulings. On the other hand, an experienced DM can tweak the system to his heart's content and make it fit his vision - and this includes adding restrictions and nerfing player options. Rule 0.

 

[trilobite]

I still think that options over restrictions is the implied nature of the game. Restricting things like classes, feats, PRCs is seen as inherently bad.

I don't think that is true. Look at Barsoomecore's campaign. Only humans (for the most part), 4 or 5 base classes, and limited magic. And I don't think his players are complaining about his great game at all!

Look at Unearth Arcana. There are alot of good ideas how to add options and restrictions to give a game flavor.

 

[Belen]

I'm in a contentious mood as well, so I will just go with..."Poor baby!!!"

Another example of intelligent discourse from the crowd.....